IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 29, 2005
GREGORY E. COLLINS-BEY, #B-18699, PLAINTIFF,
DONALD N. SNYDER, JR., ROGER COWAN, GARY KNOP, EUGENE MCADORY, TOM MAUE, PAM GRUBMAN, LT. ASHBY, GEORGE WELBORN, AND CAPTAIN LYERLA, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Gregory E. Collins-Bey ("Plaintiff'). (Doc. 58.) Plaintiff's motion concerns two discovery requests: a request for production of documents, and a set of interrogatories. Plaintiff seeks an expedited response from Defendants, or, in the alternative, an order precluding Defendants from introducing evidence "on these topics or subject matter." (Id.) Trial is set to begin on January 9, 2006. Plaintiff filed his motion on December 8, 2005, and sent his requests to Defendants on December 9, 2005, exactly one month before trial. (Doc. 60, Ex. 1.)
The Court denies Plaintiff's motion. To begin with, the discovery deadline in this case was February 20, 2004. (Doc. 17.) That deadline has since passed. Plaintiff has not requested an extension, nor has explained why one would be warranted. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to provide certification that he made a good-faith attempt to confer with Defendants prior to filing his motion, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2).*fn1 Defendants, in fact, affirmatively indicate that no such attempt was made.*fn2 This runs directly counter to the procedure set forth by the Federal Rules. FED.R.CIV.P.37(a)(2). Finally, contrary to Plaintiff's suggestion, at least some of Plaintiff's requested materials do not appear to be "accessible only to Defendants." (Doc. 58.) For example, though Plaintiff asks Defendants to produce "[a]ll grievances filed by Plaintiff from January 1, 2000, through December 2002," the final pretrial report states that Plaintiff's Exhibits 1-16 consist of "Grievances filed and responses." (Doc. 41.) This fact is inconsistent with Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant maintains sole control of his requested documents.
For these reasons, the Court is unwilling to shoulder Defendants with the burden of responding to Plaintiff's requests. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. (Doc. 58.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R. Herndon United States District Judge